Sudhir Sharma v. CBI

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?

3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?

JUDGMENT

1. This revision petition has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment dated 16th October 2010 passed by learned first appellate court upholding the conviction of the petitioner awarded by learned trial court vide judgment dated 24th December 2009.

2. The petitioner was convicted by the learned trial court under Sections 380, 419, 420, 465, 467, 471 IPC read with Section 120B IPC and also under Section 12(1)(a)(d) of Indian Passport Act. The allegation against the petitioner was that he along with coaccused Gurjinder Singh stole six unused official passports in the name of officials namely Mr. U.K. Verma, Mr. A.G. Dixit, Mr. Surender Singh, Mr. Parveen Singh Aswal, Ms. Anita Peter and Mr. S.C. Kulshrestra. The petitioner forged these passports by affixing photographs of persons who were aspiring to go abroad and he forged the 2010:DHC:6203 Crl. Rev. No. 737/2010 passports into passport of six aspirants namely, Mandeep Singh Kehlon, Balbir Singh, Lakhbir Singh, Nachhtar Pal, Gurinder Kaur and Virsa Singh and sent them abroad. The two courts below after considering the evidence adduced and considering the CFSL report showing that the forgery was done by the petitioner came to conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of the aforesaid offences and convicted the petitioner for abovementioned offences. The petitioner was sentenced by the learned trial court under different provisions. All imprisonments were to run concurrent. Thus, the petitioner was sentenced to maximum three years of imprisonment and payment of fine.

3. By way of this revision petition, the petitioner has assailed the order on merits and seeks to argue that the trial courts have not appreciated the evidence properly and have wrongly convicted the petitioner.

4. It is settled law that while considering a revision petition, this court has not to act as a court of second appeal and cannot disturb the concurrent findings on facts given by the two courts below. The two courts below after considering the evidence have come to conclusion that the petitioner was the person responsible for stealing the passports, he forged them and used the same for aspirants who wanted to go abroad, got them photographed in a particular manner, prepared visa application and obtained visa on their behalf, obtained foreign exchange, tickets and sent them abroad.

5. I find no jurisdictional error or infirmity in the order of learned trial court. There is no force in this petition. The petition is hereby dismissed. December 22, 2010 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J rd